Saturday, April 05, 2008

AT RANDI RHODES REQUEST, THESE REPORTERS WERE CALLED TO A THERAPY SESSION. RHODES WAS WHEELED IN AND HER STRAIGHT JACKET REMOVED AFTER IT WAS DECIDED THE ORDERLY STANDING BY COULD HANDLE ANY PROBLEMS THAT MIGHT ARISE.

THE DOCTOR BEGAN BY ASKING HER HOW SHE WAS FEELING.

RHODES IGNORED THE QUESTION AND INSTEAD SNARLED, "JOAN OF ARC WAS A F**KING W**RE! ELEANOR ROOSEVELT WAS A F**KING W**RE! MOTHER THERESA? W**RE AND B**CH! I NEED A DAMN DRINK!"

WITH THAT RANDI RHODES REACHED FOR THE FLAP/WADDLE BELOW HER CHIN, GRIPPED IT AND JERKED THE SKIN OF HER FACE OFF! HAVING DONE THAT, SHE REVEALED SHE WAS CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS!

Starting with war resistance. War veteran Chad Hetman writes The Daily Targum to explain, "People should be asking if ROTC instructors are teaching cadets that it is their legal duty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to refuse and challenge unlawful orders. Since the illegal war began, only one soldier has had the sense and courage to do his duty, Lieutenant Ehren Watada. The military is supposed to be politically neutral, but not legally neutral and almost all troops never read or understand the Constitution that they blindly swear to 'Support and Defend Against ALL Enemies both Foreign And DOMESTIC'." Watada is the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq (June 2006). In February 2007, Watada was court-martialed. Judge Toilet (aka John Head) halted the court-martial in order to give the prosecution a do-over and he halted the court-martial over defense objection. Double-jeopardy should prevent Watada from being prosecuted/persecuted again; however, the US military holds out hopes of convincing a judge that the Constitution -- though members of military swear to uphold it -- does not actually apply to the military.

I certainly expect the army to make an example out of my stand and what I'm speaking against. Certainly they want to set the example and I think it's very dangerous because the example or message they are trying to send is that when you join the military you do what you are told -- it doesn't matter what your beliefs are, you do what you are told and that is a very dangerous message to send because who wants to join the military if you are going to be forced to do (something) -- regardless of whatever you believe in your own conscience -- and I think that will lead to a mass exodus of soldiers leaving the military because of that and also it will prevent a lot of potential recruits from joining the military.

And that apparently remains the goal of the US military which refuses to discharge Watada (whose service contract ended December 2006) and holds out hopes of subverting the Constitution by court-martialing him again. Since his contract expired, Watada has reported for duty each day. He continues to do so. Thank You Lt. Watada is calling for: "No New Court Martial! Dismiss All Charges! Release Lt. Watada with an Honorable Discharge!"

Some war resisters are attempting to be granted safe harbor in Canada. The Canadian Parliament will debate a measure this month on that issue. You can make your voice heard. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.

SO MUCH for Iraq's "defining moment." That's what the "Decider" called last week's Iraqi offensive against Shiite militants in Basra. It was a defining moment all right, one that underscored how worthless Iraqi's army and "unity" government are five years into the war. Interesting how muted Washington has been about the whole affair lately. Initially, the Bush Administration scrambled to put a positive spin on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's ill-advised and ill-prepared government crackdown in the country's second largest city. Only after Iraqi security forces got a "thumpin" -- to put it in George W. Bush's vernacular -- and the prime minister, who had vowed to remain in Basra for a "decisive and final battle" against the militias, backed down after Iran brokered a cease-fire, did the administration start to disown the debacle.

And include The Villager whose editorial, "Dems must find their spine on Iraq," spelled it out clearly: "The so-called surge is not "working" and it has nothing to do with the heightened violence last week. Even with the reduced level of violence against Americans in the last few months, we were still losing about a soldier a day. Many more troops are being severely wounded with crippling physical and mental injuries. Iraqi civilians continue to be killed in far greater numbers. The surge's intent was to prompt the Iraqis into making political compromises in order to govern themselves. Even the Bush administration admits there has been little progress on that front. How will the Iraqis ever be able to police themselves if Bush and John McCain continue to suggest we are willing to stay indefinitely -- a century, if necessary?" The assault on Basra was a War Crime. It was also a moment that revealed to the entire world that the US installed puppet Nouri al-Maliki was incompentent and unsupported by the Iraqi people.

He made ultimatums and then had to back down because he lacks the support to carry those out. This week he showed up attempting to save face after Moqtada al-Sadr's call for a stand-down (via talks between members of Iraq's parliament and Iran) brought the peace al-Maliki can never provide. He also begged for resistance fighters to return at least 50 government vehicles they had seized during the fighting -- but he calls it a 'win.' And he and his White House handlers learn nothing from the experience. AFP reports that Thursday he was boasting of more assaults on al-Sadr's followers and repeating his talk of "outlaws" and how he doesn't make deals with him. Having yet again talked big, he got sleep and -- maybe he had scary nightmares -- showed up today with a different tune. Reuters reported this morning that he was now saying turn in weapons and everyone can get along! He'll even "grant amnesty from prosectuion"! Retuers observed, "The statement appeared to soften Maliki's position from Thursday, when at a news conference he threatened a crackdown on Sadr's strongholds in Baghdad." Meanwhile Matt Schofield (Kansas City Star) wonders, "So, we're almost five years from the day Baghdad fell, and it's time to ask: Who is in control of Iraq?"

IF YOU'RE NOT RUSH LIMBAUGH OR ONE OF HIS CLONES, THERE'S REALLY NO COMEBACK FROM THAT. IT WENT BEYOND OFFENSIVE.

RHODES FELT OTHERWISE, "IT'S THE GAYS! THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN AGAINST ME! THE GAYS! AND THE WORKING CLASS PEOPLE! AND THE WHOLE WORLD! THE WHOLE WORLD IS AGAINST ME! IT'S BECAUSE I'M SO F**KING TALENTED AND SO F**KING BEAUTIFUL!"

WHEN ASKED IF SHE HAD A MISTAKE, RHODES SCREAMED, "THE ONLY MISTAKE I MADE IS NOT NAMING MORE OF THEM! I'LL DESTROY THE WHOLE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IF I HAVE TO IN ORDER TO GET MY SWEET BAMBI THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOMINATION! I LOVE BAMBI! NO ONE LOVES BAMBI LIKE ME! LOVE! AND UNITY! THAT'S WHAT I'M PREACHING!"

THESE REPORTERS NODDED TO THE ATTENDENT WHO WHEELED THE STRAIGHT JACKETED RHODES OUT OF THE ROOM.

Starting with war resistance. Joshua Key is an Iraq War veteran who could not continue to take part in the illegal war. He and his family (wife Brandi Key and their children) moved to Canada to seek asylum which was denied November 2006 by Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board. Currently he is appealing that decision before Canada's Federal Court. Colin Perkel (Canadian Press) reports that "lawyer Jeffry House told Justice Robert Barnes the board was wrong to conclude that the U.S. allows soldiers to object legally to what their military is doing in Iraq. In fact, House said, the United States Supreme Court has held that going to war is a high-level policy decision that cannot be litigated" and quotes him explaining, "There is no possibility whatsoever in the U.S. that anyone can raise the issue of an illegal war." In 2005, Orlando's WESH reported (text and video) on Joshua Key and quoted Jeffry House explaining of war resisters, "They shouldn't be punished because they are making a moral choice that has a lot to be said for it. . . . These are people that to me seem so innocent of any wrongdoing that I feel like I have to go the last mile for them." Joshua Key explains, "I went to fight for my country. To me, the Army, they lied to me from the beginning."

I wish I could pass on my [PTSD] nightmares to him [George W. Bush]. America's sons and daughters are losing their lives because he fabricated reasons to go to war, the weapons-of-mass-destruction lie. I deserted an injustice and leaving was the only right thing to do. I owe one apology and one apology only, and that is to the people of Iraq.

Brian Lynch (Vancouver's Straight.com) quotes Key explaining, "I went to fight for my country, and I did what I was told. I left it only when I saw for myself that it was unjust and immoral. . . . It would've been easier just to say, 'Okay, I'll go back and do what I was doing.' The hardest thing was to do what I did. And I live with a clear conscience because of that." Last year, Jenny Dean (Denver Post) told the stories of several war resisters including Key:

Joshua Key was a welder and part-time pizza deliveryman in Oklahoma with a wife, two kids and a baby on the way. "I couldn't make ends meet," he says. In May 2002, a recruiter in a strip mall offered a deal too good to refuse: steady pay, health insurance and, because he was a father, no combat duty. But by fall when Key arrived at Fort Carson, the rumors of war had begun. He and others in the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment figured if war came it would be over quickly. And, in fact, when Key first arrived in Iraq, there was virtually no resistance. He says he was taught how to blow doors off houses and search for terrorists and caches of weapons. In 200 raids, the private first class says, he never found more than the occasional rifle. All males over 5 feet tall were to be handcuffed and sent away for interrogation, he says. The women and children were to be held at gunpoint, Key says. He adds that any money or valuables were fair game and admits to pocketing his share. After all, he figured, they were the enemy. His uneasieness grew as the violence around him escalated. The tipping point came one day when his unit was traveling along the Eurphrates River and happened upon the bodies of four decapitated Iraqis. He says he was ordered to find evidence of a firefight. He found none. But he says he did see a panicked American soldier screming "We (expletive) lost it here" as other soldiers kicked the heads like soccer balls. "I'm not going to have no part of this," he says he told his commander. During a leave six months later, Key told his wife he wasn't going back: "I couldn't help but think we had become the terrorists. What if it was us and someone came breaking into our homes and held guns at our children?"

The Associated Press quotes him from outside the court yesterday explaining, "You're terrorizing the civilian population -- for what sense or for what reason, I don't know. The innocent killings of civilians happened on a systematic basis there. It wasn't every now and then, it was an everyday occasion." Colin Perkel (Canadian Press) reports that "Judge Barnes said he hopes to rule before August." Should the Federal Court not overturn the board's decision, Key's next step would be to appeal to the country's Supreme Court. Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey were the first US war resisters to appeal and, November 15, 2007, Canada's Supreme Court refused to hear their cases.

Should the Supreme Court also refuse to hear Key's the case, the best chance for Key and other US war resisters is a measure scheduled to be debated and voted by Canada's Parliament this month. You can make your voice heard. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum. Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Turning to the United States. Shortly the White House sends Gen David Petraeus and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker off to make the rounds of Congress and attempt to launch another wave of Operation Happy Talk to convince the people of America that the illegal war must continue. Various efforts are taking place on the part of the US Congress to avoid being caught off guard the way they were in September. Some work, some don't. Case in point, the press conference this morning held by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi, what was the point of the press conference? Reading the wires may result in confusion. Reuters reports on the conference in terms of . . . a bankruptcy bill. At some point, her nonsense on super delegates will be picked up. The topic was Iraq. Pelosi stated that when they took questions but refused to stick to that topic and felt the need to embellish on other topics repeatedly. After the other House members left, Pelosi continued to entertain questions (she even continued taking non-Iraq questions as she walked out of the room). You either focus or you don't. Pelosi didn't. Pelosi gave reporters every reason to focus on something other than Iraq (not that most need a reason to do so). She did a HORRIBLE job and, if that's the House's best effort, the American people are in a lot of trouble.

Others participating in the conference were Ike Skelton, Howard Berman and Rahm Emanuel. Skelton, who chairs the House Armed Services Committee, declared that, "It's the Iraqis that are letting themselves down. They have had, as a result of the so-called surge, space" to move foward but they "are not stepping up to the plate as they should. The American People should understand that it's theirs [the Iraqis] to win or lose." Berman referred to the need for the upcoming hearings to cover "broad issues about costs, readiness, the [US] role in Afghanistan" and he noted the escalation's "underlying premise" was "national reconciliation" in Iraq which hasn't taken place. He noted the benchmarks and how nothing has really happpened there either. Yes, a few laws have been pased, Berman noted, but they "are ambiguous and it's very unclear whether they will ever be implemented." He cited one in particular. The de-de-Baathifcation law. (Paul Bremer issued the de-Baathification order so anything that remedies it is referred to here as the "de-de-Baatification law. Berman didn't use that term.) Berman noted it was "passed two months ago and still is not implemented." He cited that as the sort of issues that Petraeus and Crocker needed to provide answers on as well as the "strengthening of Iran and even Iran's role" in the Basra conflict. Repeatedly stressed (including by Pelosi) was the issue of "cost" which includes "America's security, our armed forces and, as the Speaker said, our economy."

When reporters tried to enlarge the topic early on, Pelosi was prepared and declared, "Right now our focus is on the testimony next week." (That was in reference to an expected 'supplemental' war funding request from the White House.) But she couldn't even maintain that focus for the brief press conference. (It lasted approximately a half-hour). She noted the costs of the illegal war was "now in the trillions" and the White House declared, before starting the Iraq War, "that the war would probably cost about $50 billion and could probably be paid soon." She noted hos many millions oil revenues bring to Iraq each day and stated that the US is spending "about $300 million a day in Iraq and we get no offset."

"What I hope we don't hear from General Petraeus next week," she declared, is a glorfication of what just happened in Basra . . . because the fact is that there are many questions to arise from what happened in Basra." She listed some including that the US reported only received notice that the assault on Basra would be taking place "twenty-four hours ahead of time". She wondered what was worse -- that the US would only receive 24 hours notice or that US forces were then brought in? She mentioned Moqtada al-Sadr at length and noted "al-Sadr established the terms by which he would freeze the violence from his side -- terms probably dictated by Iran and they were accepted like that (snaps fingers) by al-Maliki."

Skelton noted, "The strain is heavy. It's not heavy just on those in uniform, but on their families as well." He continued by declaring that Afghanistan was not the only "interest" the US had and that "you can only stretch the military so far."

Rahm Emanuel actually rescued the Q&A because Pelosi was so defocused. He stepped up to the microphone at several points. His strongest section was when he noted that, regardless of what happens on the ground in Iraq, the White House cries "more troops, more timeand more money" and dubbed this a "policy cul-du-sac and we just keep going round and round".

Referencing WalkOn.org's General Betray-Us ads in Septemeber, Pelosi was asked if she was requesting any advocacy groups sit it out on the sidelines and she responded, "I don't deter anyone's right to speak out. I'm a big proponent of the First Amendment but I wope we [Congress] would shine a bright light of truth and mirror on what he [Petraeus] has to say." This was her strongest section in the press conference and she used the focus (provided by Rahm Emanuel rescuing the moment, let's all be honest) to discuss what needs to be focused on in next week's testimonies. 1) How is it helping the US fight "the real war on terror in Afghanistan"? 2) "How is it impacting our readiness?" 3) "How is it impacting our economy?" She went on to state that the Iraq War is "driving us into debt, which is driving us into recession and the American people are paying the costs." She should have closed with her next statement, reminding the reporters that "we have a general and an ambassador -- two employees of the United States -- coming" to offer testimony. That was the closing moment.

But Pelosi couldn't stay focused and, by this time, Rahm was gone and so were Skelton and Berman leading Pelosi, in this alleged "Let's focus on Iraq!" conference, to start rambling on about MLK, Ghandi, her recent trip to India ("which some of you may have read about") and blah, blah, blah, blah.

Could someone inform the Speaker of the House that the Democrats in Congress are attempting to prevent another snow job by Petraeus and Crocker? Pelosi needs to stay on topic. No one needs to hear about her travels to India. Or what's going on in the rotunda. Presumably, all press present were provided with a schedule of the day's events. The conference was about Iraq and specifically attempting to set down markers by which the American people could measure next week's testimony. Sadly, Pelosi still wasn't done and had to then offer her opinions on the issue of super delegates -- her opinion, it should be noted, to a question NO ONE ASKED. The topic, Pelosi apparently forgot, was Iraq and preparing for next week's testimony. She needs to stay focused or send out surrogates in the future.

Starting with war resisters. "Watada is the only officer in the U.S. armed forces who has taken seriously his oath to uphold the Constitution." Justin Hughes (Golden Gate [X]Press) quotes whistle blower Daniel Ellsberg explaining that to a large turnout Sunday at San Francisco's Unitarian Universalist Church: "He praised Lt. Ehren Watada, who refused to deploy to Iraq in 2006 because of moral opposition to the war. Watada was the first commissioned officer in the U.S. armed forces to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq." Watada, whose service should have ended in December 2006, remains in limbo as the US military attempts to mount an argument which would explain why the Constitution has no meaning and the double-jeopardy clause should be set aside. Without overriding the Constitution, the US military cannot retry Watada. In February 2007, Judge Toilet (aka John Head) overruled defense objections and declared a mistrial (due to the fact that the prosecution was losing) with the hopes of handing the military a do-over. The Constitution forbids that and forbids it just for that reason. November 8, 2007, Judge Benjamin Settle issued an injunction and Watada's case remains on hold.

Since refusing to deploy in June of 2006, Watada has continued to report for duty. Despite the fact that his service should have ended in December 2006, he continues reporting. This issue should have been settled some time ago and should not be forgotten in election year hype. Watada took a brave and public stand. It was so brave and so public that no officer has yet to follow him, all this time later. Which is why Ellsberg notes that of all the officers in the military, only Watada grasped what the Constitution meant and required.

Joshua Key is a US war resister. He, Brandi Key and their children moved to Canada when Key returned from Iraq and realized he could not continue to take part in the illegal war. He was among the earliest to publicly draw the comparison between foreign forces in Iraq and what would happen if foreign forces occupied the US? Would US citizens resist? He tells his story in The Deserter's Tale (written by Key and Lawrence Hill). He is also telling his story, the Canadian Press reports, to Canada's Federal Court today as he attempts to win on appeal after his claim for refugee status was denied last November by Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board ("board" in name only -- one person rules) following their denial of his claim because he wasn't a War Criminal (truly, the board's decision states he would have been admitted if he'd committed war crimes) leading his attorney Jeffry House to declare that decision "patently preposterous."

In April of last year, Tracy Bowden (Australia's ABC) reported on Keys and other US war resisters in Canada. "I'm not a baby killer," Key told Bowden. "I am not a civilian killer. You know of course I'm a solider and I'm here to kill enemy combatants but I was never seeing that. All I was seeing was civilians getting hurt, getting killed, traumatised and still no justification for it." In August of last year, Tony Jones (Lateline) interviewed Key. Click here for the YouTube video.

TONY JONES: Now you were in some of the worst fighting in Fallujah and you claim to have seen at least 14 civilians killed. Can you tell us about the circumstances?

JOSHUA KEY: From one of the incidents, we were at a mayor cell, which is sort of where you would -- like where the mayor of the city stayed. I was in the back part; I saw the after-effect of it. Of course the ground was -- outrageous amount of gunfire. Of course we were getting ready ourselves. It came over the radio that, you know, that something in the front was happening. I guess the overall circumstances of it were, the end result was 12 Iraqi civilians were killed. The reason why is because somebody had gotten trigger-happy and that was one of my first instances with death there, of course, was that. I mean, it was apparent very very - the first day we got into Iraq that if you felt threatened you shoot, you ask questions later. Our actions were completely unsupervised and we did, as we will. Just -- as well with the 12 Iraqis there was no reason for them to be dead. Somebody got trigger-happy, there's death.

TONY JONES: When civilians were killed, what happened? Did your officers make reports? Did they try and investigate what had happened?

JOSHUA KEY: I myself never got questioned in the course of my ranking I had no idea what my commanding officers were doing, if anything was wrote or not. I know in many of the circumstances I witnessed myself in Iraq I asked later on if any mission statements had been written. Has anything been written about what happened last night and I was told on many occasions that it was none of my concern and none of my business.

TONY JONES: One of the most horrific incidents you record was in the night during a raid in Ramadi and you describe the circumstances with one of your sergeants actually saying, "Tonight is retaliation time in Ramadi." Tell us about that incident?

JOSHUA KEY: Well, we had many -- for that incidence, for the retaliation, prior to that there had been a commander in the third Army Recovery Regiment which was the regiment I was with that had gotten injured. I don't know exactly, I don't even know if he was a fatality. That was said after that fact. In Ramadi the second time there was so many incidents, of course. You're on a QRF mission, which is like you're the quick reaction force for the military. It's like you're a swat team. For that 24-hour period you're in control. If anything happens within that city then you're sent out to, as they say, calm down the uprising. The night we got the call we were on it, we were going to our designated spot. We took a sharp right turn by the banks of the Euphrates River. On the left side I saw bodies that were decapitated. My truck stopped. I was asked to see if there were - of course I was the lowest ranking and I was told to get out to see if I could find evidence of a fire fight, which means, you know, shell casings. When I got out of the back of my truck I heard one American soldier screaming that we had lost it. I mean, I looked to the other side and I seen American soldiers kicking the head around like a soccer ball. I got back inside of my APC, which is an armoured personnel carrier, said I wouldn't have no involvement. Of course the next day I asked if anything had been filed for that, because to me that was completely unacceptable. That's when my - I said that's when my will started to change, of course.

TONY JONES: I have to get you to go back over that because of the way you just described it. Are you saying you saw American soldiers kicking around the decapitated head of a dead Iraqi?

JOSHUA KEY: Yes, that was -- of course I live with that nightmare every day. That's something I have a lot of problems with, of course. But to me that was completely -- there's no justification and no reason why that should have happened like that. There's nothing - there's no reason; it only takes one shot to kill a person, even if it was for that standpoint. But there's no reason whatsoever to decapitate a human person by means of gunfire.

You can make your voice heard. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.

Puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki had his strings pulled by the White House leading to the disaster that was the assault on Basra. Fallout is not limited to the wounded and the dead. Warren P. Strobel and Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) report that the "paltry results have silenced talk at the Pentagon of further U.S. troop withdrawal any time soon" and quote an unnamed "senior U.S. military official in Washington" declaring, "There is no empirical evidence that the Iraqi forces can stand up." Kevin Sullivan (Washington Post) reports a similar effect in England where Minister of Defence Des Browne has nixed the announced withdrawals and stated, "It is prudent that we pause any further reductions while the current situation is unfolding." The assault was a failure on every level. It failed in terms of military strategy. It demonstrated (yet again) how weak the Iraqi military was and how weak Iraqi soldiers ties were to the military (since so many of them defected sides during the fighting). It revealed the intense and widespread loathing for al-Maliki among Iraqis. It revealed that Iran is a power broker in the area and, indeed, a peace broker in the conflict. It inflated Moqtada al-Sadr's standing throughout Iraq. Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) observes, "It also left the United States once more painted as the villain by the Sadrists although the offensive is widely thought to have been the brainchild of Maliki and his inner circle of advisors. The Sadrists made clear that this latest chapter would be used against U.S. forces in Iraq" going on to quote an Iraqi who explaines, "America is looking for a man who would take over from the occupation forces to target the Iraqi people, and now Maliki has achieved this ambition. Maliki has somehow started to execute the American project and the Iraqi people considers Maliki a tool in the hands of the Americans." Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) probes the survivors of the continued US violence in Baghdad interviewing the survivors of US snipers -- snipers the US repeatedly denies the existance of -- such as Karrar Ali Hussein (sixteen-years-old and 'guilty' of playing soccer) and Ammar Ensayer ("guilty" of going to the marketplace). Fadel also speaks with the victims of the US air strikes such as Jabar Abdul Ridha who lost wife Kareema Hafout and daughter Nisrene Jabar when the US military elected to bomb their home as Kareema was hanging laundry. In complete denial, Maj Gen Kevin J. Bergner (US military flack) declared in Baghdad today praised the assault and maintained it demonstrated al-Maliki's "legitimate authority" and claimed "there are already indications that many citizens are working in support of their government."

Why would anyone say something so absurd? For the same reason the assault was launched, to prepare the rollout for US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and Gen David Petraeus' testimonies to Congress this month. The assault was a disaster in that regard as well. It was supposed to give a p.r. boost, another wave of Operation Happy Talk that the two men could ride to justify the lack of progress and their cries for more illegal war.

In September, Congress acted like idiots. They allowed the White House roll out to take place with nothing to counter it. This week, US Senator Joe Biden uses his position as chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to do the sort of work Congress should have been doing last September. "Iraq After The Surge" was the title of two of today's hearings with the first being military prospects and the second being political prospects. It was a time for Senators on the committee (and anyone following the hearing) to get a grasp on some realities before the p.r. blitz begins.

"Last year I rejcted the claim that it [the 'surge'] was a new strategy. Rather, I said, it is a new tactic used to achieve the same old strategic aim, political stability. And I foresaw no serious prospects for success. I see no reason to change my judgment now," declared Lt. General William E. Odom (Retired). He was one of four witnesses testifying on the first panel. Joining him were retired Generals Barry McCaffrey (General) and Robert H. Scales, Jr. (Major General) as well as War Hawk Michele Flournoy who doesn't serve in the military, just wants to send it everywhere. Odom was the one to listen to of the four as he felt no need to sweeten up his findings. One example was when he addressed the "Awakening" Councils -- turncoat thugs now supporting the US because the US is paying them:

Let me emphasize that our new Sunni friends insist on being paid for their loyalty. I have heard, for example, a rough estimate that the cost in one area of about 100 square kilometers is $250,000 per day. And periodically they threaten to defect unless their fees are increased. You might want to find out the total costs for these deals forecasted for the next several years, because they are not small and they do not promise to end. Remember, we do not own these people. We merely rent them. And they can break their lease at any moment.

If Congress is going to take advantage of the opportunites the hearings Biden held provided, they will be requesting that information right now. They will not, instead, merely wait to ask Petraeus and Crocker when they appear. If they do that, the two men will beg off with, "I don't have that information before me." So put in the requests now. Let the White House know you want the dollar amounts.

Odom was thinking of the coming testimonies and urged the committee, "When the administration's witnesses appear before you, you should make them clarify how long the army and marines can sustain this band-aid strategy."

Odom rejected the nonsense of "bottom up" building of a nation-state and noted that, historically, it has no known antaecedents. It's a shame he wasn't also on the second panel because this administration talking point was favored by two panelist.

"This idea of fight terrorism" bothers Joe Biden because if the US left, any al Qaeda that is present would leave as well and "I find it not plausible that if we left al Qaeda will gain a foothold." Odom agreed with the point (and had noted it himself in his opening remarks.)

More importantly, Biden felt, "We don't talk much about the downsides of staying. The downsides of staying are overwhelming . . . but we have fallen into the jargon that if we leave . . . that these terrible things would happen. Is the opposite true that if we leave . . . we're likely to damage the ability of al Qaeda" to remain in Iraq? General McCaffrey agreed with that assessment noting that "it's hard to imagine that we went to Iraq to fight al Qaeda" in the first place of that the US needs to remain in Iraq for that reason.

Biden reminded everyone of "the state purpose" by the White House for the so-called "surge" which "was to get to the point where there was a change in the space on the ground . . . in order to give the administration an opportunity to come up with a political solution" and for the "warring factions" to come together. Odom rejected the notion floated by some which was the need for "trainers" to be left behind. He rightly noted that not only is that not a withdrawal, it's an invitation for further violence. Biden agreed noting that you cannot "transition into a training emphasis" while withdrawing troops "without leaving trainers exposed."

Odom addressed the elephant in the room: the violence that likely follows a withdrawal. "We don't have the physical choice to prevent chaos when we leave," he declared. "It's going to happen . . . no matter what we do. . . . We have the blame because we went in [to Iraq] . . . We do have the choice not to send more US troops. That's the moral choice we're facing." He also noted how trainers were "besides the point" when Iraq is plauged with conflict and divided loyalties.

General Scales fancy the country a circus performer, one that can walk a tightrope: "The key is a delicate balance between pulling out American pwoer and withdrawing." He went on to compare it a "balance beam or a teeter-totter."

Odom dismissed that idea and noted that this was a critical moment and that there had been a series of them throughout the Iraq War. "The first engagement was when we went in, we won that," he explained. That was the last time he judged a 'win' had taken place and "we have been on the defense ever since."

US Senator Richard Lugar cited Gen. Richard A. Cody's "stark assessment" when testifying to the Senate yesterday that he had "never seen our lack of strateig depth be where it is today." Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) reports that Cody is set to be replaced with Lt Gen Raymond Odierno whose confirmation hearing is set for tomorrow. Odierno is a big Happy Talker and also fond of repeating charges against Iran without any backing.

the forces depleted to the point that they are today. Luger referenced a "Spike in Attacks" chart in the Washington Post and noted, "It points out that a surge . . . buys time." He then reviewed various figures to demonstrate that US service members are repeatedly targeted and that the 'low' is still not low (see chart).

THE TEN-YEAR-OLD RACKED UP AN IMPRESSIVE 300 SCORE TO BAMBI'S PITIFUL SCORE OF 37.

THIS MORNING THE BAMBI CAMPAIGN STRUCK BACK.

JESSE JACKSON JR. WENT ON MSNBC TO DECLARE THAT HE ONCE SAW GABRIELLA CRY OVER "SOMETHING SHE SAW ON NICK AT NIGHT! BUT I NEVER, EVER SAW HER CRY OVER HURRICANE KATRINA! WHERE WERE YOUR TEARS THEM, MS. LAMAS, WHERE!"

MEANWHILE DAVID AXELROD COZIED UP TO THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY SUGGESTING THAT THEIR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT MIGHT WANT TO EXPLORE HOW LAMAS SPENDS RECESS. "WE'VE HEARD RUMORS," AXELROD INSISTED.

"I REALLY DON'T WANT TO BRING RACE INTO IT," MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL INSISTED, "BUT IT WAS OBVIOUSLY RACIAL. AND DIDN'T BOWLING COME FROM THE NETHERLANDS? I BELIEVE IT DID. DON'T INTERRUPT ME. WELL HOW CAN OUR SON OF KENYA BE EXPECTED TO COMPETE. IT IS RACISM."

Starting with war resisters, Cherise Ryan (World On the Web) zooms in on war resister Phil McDowell who is not in Candad and cites a Washington Post report on McDowell in explaining how he enlisted following 9/11, deployed to Iraq and made the grade of sergeant, discharged and returned to civilian life only to discover he was being stop-lossed and re-deployed to Iraq. Instead, McDowell decided to seek refugee status in Canada, as many other war resisters have done. Currently, McDowell is among many waiting to find out what the Candidan Parliament will decide this month.

A measure is before it that would grant safe harbor to war resisters. Canada granted that to US war resisters during Vietnam. There's a really bad editorial from a right-wing Canadian paper that keeps popping up everywhere and argues that back then Canada was taking in draft dodgers and there is no draft. (What do you call stop-loss then?) No, there's not a draft but a lot of bloated men who sat out Vietnam in the US via a variety of deferrments sure do love to lie and claim opposition to the illegal war then was all due 'to the draft, man.' We've noted before the damage their lies (one took to inflating his 'service' and 'trauma' from enduring a physical -- he was never drafted, he had a college deferment among other things) do, their bragging, their boasting. It damages the peace movement (provides a nice easy out to avoid working harder) and we've also noted how it continues to damage the cases war resisters are attempting to make in Canada.

So let's review it one more time. During Vietnam, American males could go to Canada and seek asylum. There were two categories "draft dodgers" -- which everyone seems to remember -- and "deserters." A "draft doger" (also known as a "draft resister") was someone who had been called up. A "deserter" was someone already in the service. Canada's asylum then was not conditional upon someone being drafted. Those who were in the military and elected to resist were waived on through the border and welcomed the same way. There was no additional burden placed on them. They were not required, for instance, to prove that, yes, they were in the service, but they had been drafted into it. A male who chose to enlist and then began resisting after he was serving could go to Canada and be granted asylum. Pot apparently smoked the brains of not only our left 'leaders' of that period -- a pot haze is the only thing to explain the repeating of the lies of the draft -- but the Canadian education system failed to educate their citizenry on recent history because an editorial board that wants to argue -- as one did last week and all the right-wing Canadian cites have re-posted it -- that Canada should say "no" to today's war resisters because there was a draft during Vietnam and Canada only took in "draft dodgers" is merely flaunting how ignorant everyone serving on the editorial board is.

Had Canada put in a place a qualifier that said, "We will take war resisters but only those who have seen duty in Vietnam," Canada still would have been swarmed with some of the same war resisters. "Draft dodger" (or "draft resister") or "deserter," both cateogries were welcomed in Canada during Vietnam. That is reality and I'm sorry that the Canadian education system is so poor today. In terms of the US, honestly the same male 'leaders' of the left tripping out on tales of the draft today hurt the movement in many ways back then as well. They'll probably continue to do so when they are in their graves.

Then US president Gerald Ford pardoned Tricky Dick of crimes against the US citizenry, crimes against the US government, crimes against humanity and a great deal more. With the war resisters, he set conditions. Apparently he didn't think Tricky Dick's fat ass could make it through an obstacle course so he just waived Nixon on through. Ford granted war resisters an amnesty . . . . provided they went through a long process and met this criteria and that critieria and then, in the end, were judged to be worthy of the pardon. Having just pardoned the War Criminal Nixon, it was outrageous. Hearing an idiot, post-Ford's death, go on Democracy Now! and brag about Ford's program only explained to you just how much "establishment" is also in the left. In Canada (and I was visiting Canada when that program was announced) there was huge outrage and outcry -- from Canadians as well as US war resisters. Those who resisted the slaughter in Inochina were being asked to leep through hoop after hoop with no guarantee that if they made it through all the hoops they might be pardoned. Much speculation at the time was that it was a trap/trick to get US war resisters back in the United States where they would be tossed in prison. But Ford's program offered the obstacle course to both.

Jimmy Carter followed the Ford presidency. Carter didn't offer anything to deserters. Carter did offer draft resisters a limited asylum.In recent years, a number of war resisters from that era have been arrested while visiting the US. So there's really no excuse for people who lived through that time period to not know the difference. The only excuse is to provide cover for a peace movement that continues to struggle and to provide an excuse for your own inaction. (And to brag about days forty years ago which, let's face it, is all some left 'leaders' have to offer today having willingly been co-opted long ago.) Not grasping the difference, not speaking of that difference between reality then and 'reality' remembered now is hurting US war resisters and someone please throw a pie in the face of the next Baby Boom left male 'leader' who wants to gas bag about the hardships he endured due to the 'draft' that never found him called out because he knew how to game the system. It's the equivalent of fishing tales only damaging and it needs to stop. If you can't pie them, stop the males with, "When did you serve in Vietnam?" And when they stutter that they didn't, ask them how they got it. When they start to offer the tale of that 'invasive' physical, stop them and repeat, "I asked how you were able to avoid serving since you didn't go to Canada and you didn't go to Vietnam?" If one claims "I went underground" ask him, "From the time you turned 18 until Vietnam was over?" Because, no, the bulk of the 'leaders' jaw boning today did not go 'underground' and when a few did, it had nothing to do with the illegal war but everything to do with being kicked to the curb by the peace movement. But that's the story they never want to tell.

Their efforts at boasting stroke their own egos but they do not help today's war resisters. If you are interested in helping today's war resisters, you need to remember that the measure before the Canadian Parliament is supposed to be addressed early this month. You can make your voice heard. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.

"Post-traumatic stress disorder is among the most common diagnoses made by the Veterans Health Administration. Of the approximately 300,000 veterans from Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom who have accessed VA health care, nearly 20 percent 60,000 veterans- have received a preliminary diagnosis of PTSD. The VA also continues to treat veterans from Vietnam and other conflicts who have PTSD." That was how US House Rep Michael H. Michaud today opened the Subcommittee on Health that he chairs. The title of the hearing was Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Treatment and Research: Moving Ahead Toward Recovery and there were five panels to the hearing.

The first panel revolved around the testimony of US Army Director, Divisions of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research's Col Charles W. Hoge. That's the bulk of our focus because there were enough revelations and lies in that one panel to fill a book.

US House Rep John T. Salazar spoke of a veteran who had PTSD and was being denied benefits, explained that the veteran struggles to get the help promised and to navigate the VA system while working part-time at a Subway. Hoge didn't seem overly concerned. US House Rep Shelley Berkley spoke of speaking with a lifetime friend who was also a Vietnam veteran and shared with her that basically it was the exact same problems happening all over again. Hoge didn't seem overly concernced.

What Hoge did seem concerned with was repeatedly intoning "New England Jounal of Medicine" and trying out catch phrases. On the former, Hoge published. We're not his parents, we honestly don't give a damn. On the latter, considering all the questions he couldn't answer, a little less time attempting to manufacture sound bytes and a little more time spent doing the job that US tax payers pay him to do would be appreciated.

Hoge had a big problem and the implication was that the press was the problem. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) gets too much attention, he felt. And even worse, he felt, there is mild TBI and no one wants to talk about that. When you see a story, he insisted, reported, they always go with the most extreme cases of TBI. What about mild TBI, Hoge wanted to know, what about mild TBI?

No doubt some people were grumbling, "Damn press." But the reality is, the press didn't push TBI. The Pentagon last year -- check any briefing -- repeatedly pushed TBI. Over and over. They are the ones, the generals they trotted out, who stated TBI was the signature wound of the Iraq War. Few in the press have any medical background. The easiest thing in the world is to toss out numbers and make assertions to them. If Hoge feels TBI's gotten too much attention from the press, he doesn't need to blame the press, he needs to blame the Pentagon. He was also blaming the press for the use of the term "TBI" and, no, the press did not invent the term.

Mild TBI, he insisted, was nothing more than a concussion, nothing more, he appeared to think he was really cute here, than having your bell rung -- like a boxer! But that damn press is going around chanting "TBI! TBI!" Again, check the transcripts of any Pentagon press conference (via video link or with all participants present). Who is introducing the term and topic each time, it's the Pentagon. If Hoge wants to point a finger he needs to point it at his own branch of government and not at the press. But he was more comfortable whining that, in the press, "it's often not made clear that the vast majority of those soldiers, service members, labeled as TBI injury have had concussions." Again, take it up with your own branch of government and quit blaming the press.

He did acknowledge there were also categories of "moderate and severe traumatic brain injury" but he wasn't interested in addressing that. He just wanted to repeatedly focus on mild TBI. "A lot of concern lately," he grumbled, "about mild traumatic brain injury and potential longterm effects of mild traumatic brain injury," when all it is is a concussion with symptoms such as "headaches, irrtability . . . concentration problems." He then wanted to state that mild TBI was most likely PTSD masking as mild TBI.

Apparently there is some trouble telling the difference between the two. Golly, if only there was a way to screen for PTSD and TBI. If only someone had worked on that . . . Oh, wait they have. On the first day of Iraq Veterans Against the War Winter Soldier Investigation a panel was held entitled The Crisis in Veterans' Healthcare. Among those speaking were veteran Adrienne Kinne who spoke not just of being a member and discharging in 1998 and then re-enlisting after 9-11, but of her time as a civilian following her second discharge and specifically, from that time period, of being a research assistant at a VA where she helped on a group that devised a way to screen for PTSD and TBI in such a way that there would be no confusion in diagnosing. Here's her testimony on what happened after they had study ready to be implemented.

Adrienne Kinne: And then they went to go to the next step, to actually make this happen. And I was actually on a conference call when someone said, "Wait a second. We can't start this screening process. Do you know that if we start screening for TBI there will be tens of thousands of soldiers who will screen positive and we do not have the resources available that would allow us to take care of these people so we cannot do the screening." And their rationale was that medically, medical ethics say if you know someone has a problem, you have to treat them. So since they didn't have the resources to treat them, they didn't want to know about the problem.

So Hoge, so important at Walter Reed, so informed, wanted to boo-hoo to Congress today that misdiagnosis is taking place but his branch of the government is the very branch that prevented the needed screening from taking place. The denial took place because the military didn't want to responsible for the costs resulting from TBI being identified, as Kinne noted, identify an illness and you are ethically bound to treat it. Last month, Gregg Zoroya (USA Today) reported on this issue noting:

For more than two years, the Pentagon delayed screening troops returning from Iraq for mild brain injuries because officials feared veterans would blame vague ailments on the little-understood wound caused by exposure to bomb blasts, says the military's director of medical assessments.

Which would appear to be what Hoge was doing with his dismissive listing of symptoms such as "headaches." Amazing that a doctor wouldn't cite the ringing in the ears and hearing loss, isn't it? Zoroya noted, "In a January 2006 report, scientists at the federal Defense and Veteran Brain Injury Center urged that troops be screend for TBI 'immediately'." January 2006. It's 2008. And Hoge wants to act like that never happened and thinks the problem is the press which, by his accounting, appears to have invented the term TBI and then alarmed the country falsely.

Monday, March 31, 2008

THESE REPORTERS TRAVELED WITH BAMBI THROUGHOUT THE STATE TODAY. SENATOR BAMBI OBAMA WAS GREETED WITH THE USUAL GROUPIES WHO THREW PANTIES, G-STRINGS AND BOXERS AT THE STAGE AND DEMANDED THAT HE SING "WHAT'S NEW PUSSYCAT?"

BUT THE MOST INTERESTING THING WAS THE REACTION OUTSIDE THE GROUPIES, THE EVERY DAY PEOPLE WHO HOLLERED GREETINGS TO HIM. SUCH AS, "HEY, AMERICA HATER! DROP OUT OF THE RACE!" OR "CAN'T HATE AMERICA AND BE PRESIDENT OF IT YOU STUPID LOSER!"

BAMBI WOULD WAVE AND SMILE AND SAY, "I'M COUNTING ON YOUR VOTE!"

WHEN WE QUESTIONED HIM ABOUT THE CONTINUED FALLOUT OVER HIS PASTOR, MENTOR, ROLL DOG, B.F.F. AND MANICURE PAL JEREMIAH WRIGHT, BAMBI RESPONDED, "SO WHAT?"

"CAN'T A MAN EMBRACE HATRED OF THE COUNTRY HE WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT OF? CAN'T A MAN EMBRACE HOMOPHOBIA? CAN'T ME AN JIMMY MEEKS GET TOGETHER OVER A FEW BEERS AND TELL A FEW GAY 'JOKES'? CAN'T A MAN RACK UP A RECORD NUMBER OF POLICE CALLS TO HIS OLD CONDO AND COUNT ON THE PRESS NEVER TO BRING THAT UP?"

WE STARED AT THE CANDIDATE CAUSING HIM TO ANSWER HIS OWN QUESTION: "YES, I CAN!"

When a student asked what needs to be done to end the war, Mejia answered that he doesn't believe any elected presidential candidate can end the war -- soldiers just need to stop fighting it.

"The first step in helping the rebuild their country is getting the hell out," he said.

[. . .]

"It's not patriotic to support the war, it's patriotic to stand against it," he told the audience, to a round of applause.

Sunday AP reported on Kristen Westerberg who enlisted "in October 2005" and "recruiters told her she would probably never see war duty." March 11, 2008 she was arrested (the article doesn't tell you how) and she is now at Fort Knox facing charges of desertion. Her family backs up her claims that she wouldn't have enlisted if she hadn't been told she wouldn't be shipped off to war and the military responds by declaring they don't "know why a recruiter would tell someone they wouldn't be sent to war." Jerome Burdi (South Florida Sun-Sentinel) reports Westerberg self-checked out in 2006 and quotes her father (Tom Westerberg) stating, "She doesn't agree with the war." Burdi also notes: "Palm Beach County sheriff's deputies found her in a vehicle behind a closed business after midnight March 11. They arrested her when they learned the Army had a warrant for her on a desertion charge." Why would they lie to a recruit? To make their quota. Joshua Key, another war resister in Canada, was told the same thing. Joshua Key tells his story in The Deserter's Tale (written by Key and Lawrence Hill).

Joshua Key self-checked out and is among many US war resisters currently in Canada who are attempting to seek asylum. They need support as a measure is expected to be debated next month. For those in Canada, the nation's Parliament remains the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.

Reuters reported that al-Sadr was calling for his followers to turn in their weapons. (No link, they've changed their online version with no note of a correction.) By Sunday evening, AP was explicitly stating that al-Sadr said no such thing. AP noted that Moqtada al-Sadr called for his followers to get off the street and and on the puppet government in Baghdad to cease "illegal and haphazard raids" as part of a nine-point plan. Many outlets are terming what followed a "lull." AP notes that a TV station in Basra was seized as Iraqi military troops ran from the building. In addition, Aqeel Hussein and Colin Freeman (Telegraph of London) reported that members of the Iraqi military forces were leaving the military and going over to al-Sadr's side in Basra. Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) reports today, "Even after Sadr's declartion, residents hunkered down in their homes continued to hear fierce gunfire and explosions in central Basra and southwest of the city." Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) observed of Baghdad, "The mortar shells sailed across the sky Sunday evening and ripped through the corrugated tin roof of the barbershop. They shattered brick walls, mangled beams and knocked over leather chairs. Smoke, debris and glass covered the street outside." Fadel reports that members of the Iraqi parliament "traveled to the Iranian holy city of Qom over the weekend to win the support of the commander of Iran's Qods brigades in persuading Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr to order his followers to stop military operations, members of the Iraqi parliament said. . . . There the Iraqi lawmakers held talks with Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Qods (Jerusalem) brigades of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and signed an agreement with Sadr, which formed the basis of his statement Sunday, members of parliament said." Meanwhile Mohammed Tawfeeq and Jonathan Wald (CNN) quote the mouthpiece (Sami al-Askari) of the puppet of the occupation (Nouri al-Maliki) declaring "outlaws" will continue to be attacked in Basra but that the assault will wrap up by week's end.

Today Jenny Booth (Times of London) states, "Life appeared to be returning to normal in Basra and Baghdad today". AFP maintains, "Gun-toting fighters of hardline Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr melted away from Iraqi streets on Monday after week-long clashes with security forces that killed at least 461 people." Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) notes that while there is talk of the edict issued by al-Sadr having effect in Basra "[a]t least three rockets or mortar rounds were fired at Baghdad's fortified Green Zone today, U.S. officials said, despite" al-Sadr's edict. Erica Goode and James Glanz (New York Times) note, "No serious clashes were reported in Basra on Monday." And that's all that's worth noting from an article that doesn't even grasp what happened in Iran and doesn't tell the readers what happened. (Even AP is noting "well-informed Iraqi political officials said the Iranians played a key role in hammering out the peace deal" -- it's just the Times playing their readers for fools.) Afif Sarhan (Al Jazeera) notes the impact on citizens in the populated area and quotes Abu Kareem explaining, "We need food and water. Electricity has been cut off [for] three days and all food we had in our refigerators has been lost. Many houses are being used [by] fighters to hide and yesterday they entered my home twice, raising the dangers of an air strike over us. My sons and wife are scared and when I tried to refuse their [fighters'] entrance, I was beaten." CBS and AP note, "In Basra some supermarkets and stores were open on Monday, but residents said few people were venturing out." The International Red Cross/Red Crescent notes that in addition to food and water needs, "Life-saving medical services have been affected by the fighting in Basra, Baghdad and elsewhere in the country" and that they are planning "to deliver eight tonnes of medical supplies to four hospitals in Baghdad and to hand over a futher six tonnes to the Department of Health in Kut for the Kut, Hilla and Najaf hospitals." Meanwhile AP reports that Tahseen al-Sheikhly, kidnapped Thursday, was released today (he is over security in Baghdad).

Sam Dagher (Christian Science Monitors) notes graffiti is popping up through Baghdad -- "The Charge of the Sadrs" -- which "mocks Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's security operation -- 'The Charge of the Knights'." Dagher concludes, "Mr. Sadr has demonstrated his power, dspite the blows dealt to his movement over the past few years . . . the widespread instances of surrender among the Iraqi forces and the seizure of their equipment and vehicles by the Mahdi Army shows that despite all the funding and training from the US, Iraq's soldiers remain greatly swayed by their sectarian and party loyalties and are incapable of standng up in a fight without US backing." AP evaluates the results as well noting that the puppet government was surprised by al-Sadr's response which "sent officials scrambling for a way out of the crisis. It enabled al-Sadr to show he remains a powerful force capable of challenging the Iraqi government, the Americans and mainstream Shi'ite parties that have sought for years to marginalise him." Maybe US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was jet lagged but he seems to miss the reality everyone else is getting. In Denmark today, he declared, "All of us in the government were pleased to see Prime Minister Maliki be willing to take this on and take the initiative and go down there himself with Iraqi forces to try and resolve the issue." Gates also insisted that Basra was "under the control of a bunch of thugs and gangs and militias".

Thugs? The "Awakening" Council. The thugs put on the US payroll ($300 each per month) because if you're going to attack people in your own country, you might as well get paid by the US to do so. They are the 'miracle' . . . or so the world was told. Keep rubbing that lamp and hoping for a genie because it's nearly two years since the PR efforts gained intense traction and nothing is working. Walter Pincus (Washington Post) reports, "While public attention has been focused on Shiite-vs.-Shiite fighting in Basra and Baghdad, U.S. military leaders are taking a cold second look at the future intentions of the roughly 90,000 'Sons of Iraq' -- the locally recruited and primarily Sunni security forces that are armed and supported by the United States at $300 per person each month." Tax dollars at work. The same way the US government decided to arm the Sh'itie thugs who felt the best thing to do was to attack Iraqi women, destroy their rights and take Iraq back to the stone ages. The ongoing femicide in Iraq didn't just happen, it was US funded.